ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION: NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN COLORADO, Proposed Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis And Cost-Benefit Analysis

Transcription

1 ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION: NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN COLORADO, Proposed Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis And Cost-Benefit Analysis USDA Forest Service July 16, 2008

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...4 BACKGROUND...25 PURPOSE AND NEED...26 PROPOSED RULE AND ALTERNATIVES...28 ROADLESS AREA BOUNDARIES...28 ALTERNATIVES...31 IMPLICATIONS OF RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS AND FEDERAL DIRECTION (DONE)...38 METHODOLOGY, DATA, AND ASSUMPTIONS...41 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS...41 Benefits and Costs...42 Distributional Effects...43 BASELINE DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS...48 TIME FRAME AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE...48 DATA SOURCES...48 ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND TREE-CUTTING PROJECTIONS...49 ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION...49 TREE-CUTTING AND REMOVAL...53 BENEFITS AND COSTS...55 OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH ROADLESS AREAS...55 PREFERENCES AND VALUES AFFECTED BY ALTERNATIVES...56 ANALYSIS OF LOCAL RESOURCE CONCERNS...59 Timber (Wood Products) Supply...59 Minerals and Energy...59 Compliance with EO (Statement of Energy Effects)...69 Forest Vegetation and Health...70 Fire Ecology and Fuels...74 Public Health and Safety...80 Special Use Authorizations: Non-Recreational...81 Ski Areas...84 Other Resources, Services, and Programs...85 ANALYSIS OF ROADLESS AREA CHARACTERISTICS...86 Scenic Quality...86 Wilderness...89 Other Congressionally or Administratively Designated Areas and Trails...90 Soils, Water, and Air...91 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species...98 Biodiversity Invasive Plants Recreation Recreation Special Uses Other Resources, Services, and Programs AGENCY COSTS AND REVENUES DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS Economic Profile Values at Risk from Wildfire...127

3 Economic Impacts LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Mineral Lease Payments Other Revenue Sharing Fuels Treatments SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS REFERENCES

4 Executive Summary In November 2006, Colorado Governor Bill Owens petitioned the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake rule-making requesting certain management direction and flexibility for National Forest System (NFS) roadless areas in Colorado. In April 2007, Governor Ritter resubmitted the petition with a substantive letter of transmittal, and in June 2007, the State and the U.S. Forest Service presented the petition with some modifications to the Department of Agriculture s Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC). In August 2007, based on the advisory committee s review and report, the Secretary of Agriculture accepted the State s petition and directed the Forest Service to work in cooperation with the State of Colorado to initiate rulemaking. This report summarizes the regulatory impact analysis for the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule (proposed rule) as directed by Executive Order (E.O.) issued September 30, 1993, as amended by E.O and E.O on Regulatory Planning and Review. These executive orders address regulatory planning and review and require that agencies conduct a regulatory analysis for economically significant regulatory actions. Significant regulatory actions are those that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect the economy or economic sectors. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars as well as guidance regarding E.O indicate that regulatory impact analysis should include benefit cost analysis and an assessment of distributional effects. Due to the level of interest in inventoried roadless area management, the proposed rule is designated as significant and is therefore subject to E.O The proposed rule is programmatic in nature and intended to guide future development of proposed actions in roadless areas. The proposed rule is intended to provide greater management flexibility under certain circumstances to address unique and local land management challenges, while continuing to conserve roadless values and characteristics. Increased management flexibility is primarily needed to reduce hazardous fuels and large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, to allow access to coal reserves in the North Fork coal mining areas, and to allow access to future utility and water conveyances, while continuing to conserve roadless area values and characteristics. This proposal does not authorize the implementation of any grounddisturbing activities, but rather it describes circumstances under which certain activities may be allowed or restricted in roadless areas. Before authorizing land use activities in roadless areas, the Forest Service must complete a more detailed and site-specific environmental analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Because the proposed rule does not prescribe site-specific activities, it is difficult to predict changes in benefits under the different alternatives. It should also be emphasized that the types of benefits derived from uses of roadless areas in Colorado are far ranging and include a number of non-market and non-use benefit categories. As a consequence, benefits are discussed qualitatively in many sections of this report. Details about the environmental effects of the proposed rule can be found in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the proposed rule (USDA Forest Service, 2008), as well as specialist reports developed to support the effects summarized in the DEIS. The environmental effects for a number of resources are not significantly different across alternatives 4

5 and are therefore not discussed in detail in this regulatory impact analysis; the reader is again referred to the DEIS for details about these resource areas. Methods and Assumptions This report summarizes the benefits, costs, and distributional effects of three alternatives referred to as follows: alternative 1 - the 2001 Roadless Rule (2001 rule), alternative 2 - the proposed rule, and alternative 3 - the land management plans. National Forest System (NFS) lands provide a variety of goods and services to the American public. Use of the national forests (NFs) and grasslands for both commodities and amenity services varies over time in response to changing market conditions, consumer preferences, and other factors. In general, the proposed rule indirectly affects the provision of those commodities and services (including non-use values) by altering the circumstances under which road construction and reconstruction (roading), as well as tree-cutting, are permitted in roadless areas on NFS lands in Colorado. The State s petition also requested that the rulemaking process use the most updated roadless boundaries and that all existing congressionally designated areas (e.g., wilderness) be removed from roadless areas for all alternatives. In addition, the Colorado roadless areas (CRAs) under the proposed rule exclude ski areas and current inventoried roadless areas that do not meet roadless criteria (referred to as substantially altered areas), but include new roadless acres that meet roadless criteria. As a consequence of these adjustments, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) under the 2001 rule and the land management plans alternative (IRAs) are approximately 4.25 million acres, while roadless areas under the proposed rule (CRAs) cover approximately 4.03 million acres. The IRAs described in the original environmental analysis for the 2001 rule covered approximately 4.43 million acres. As of the printing of this proposed rule, the 2001 rule is in operation by court order. For the purpose of regulatory impact analysis, the 2001 rule represents baseline conditions or goods and services provided by NFS lands in the near future in the absence of the proposed rule. Because the proposed rule does not prescribe site-specific activities, it is difficult to predict the benefits and costs of the different alternatives. In addition, the types of benefits derived from roadless characteristics and the uses of roadless areas are far ranging and include a number of non-market and non-use benefit categories that are difficult to measure in monetary terms. As a consequence, benefits are not monetized, nor are net present values or benefit cost ratios estimated. Instead, increases and/or losses in benefits are discussed separately for each resource area in a quantitative or qualitative way. Benefits and costs are organized and discussed in the context of local land management challenges or concerns ( local challenges ) and roadless characteristics in an effort to remain consistent with the overall purpose of the proposed rule, recognizing that benefits associated with local challenges may trigger or overlap with benefits associated with roadless characteristics in some cases (e.g., forest health). Access and designations for motorized versus non-motorized recreation is a topic raised in comments during scoping, however, the proposed rule does not provide direction on where and when off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be permissible other then roads constructed pursuant to the rule are closed to motor vehicles, including OHVs, unless specifically used for the purpose for which the road was built. Other travel planning-related actions should be addressed through travel management planning and individual land management plans. 5

6 The assessment of benefits and costs begins by distinguishing between the creation of potential opportunities and the projection of reasonably foreseeable activities. Potential opportunities for generating goods and services are affected by the extent to which activities are permitted in roadless areas under each alternative. Projections of reasonable foreseeable activities take into account area-specific data and evidence regarding resource utilization and development trends, location of resources, and other factors affecting the likelihood that land will be used for specific uses. This information is aggregated into assumptions about reasonably foreseeable flows of goods (e.g., coal, oil and gas production), services (e.g., reduction of risks from wildfire in the wildland urban interface), and resource utilization and then used to project activity levels (treecutting, roading) for each alternative over a 15 year time period. Projected activity levels are also used to describe potential changes in benefits derived from roadless characteristics. Details about the derivation of activity projections are described in the DEIS for the proposed rule (USDA Forest Service 2008), as well as the resource specialist reports supporting the DEIS, and are not reiterated in this regulatory impact analysis document. Distributional effects or economic impacts, in terms of jobs and labor income, are quantified for the oil and gas and the coal sectors for an economic area consisting of five Colorado counties (Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Blanco) using a regional impact model. Fiscal impacts (i.e., mineral lease payments) are estimated for counties where changes in mineral activity are expected to be physically located (Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Montrose, and Pitkin). The distributional effects associated with reducing wildfire hazard are characterized by estimating the number and values of -at-risk-communities expecting to benefit from fuel treatments in roadless areas. Distributional effects or economic impacts are not evaluated for other economic sectors (e.g., timber harvest, recreation) due to evidence presented in respective resource sections suggesting that the extent or magnitude of changes in output or services are not sufficient to cause significant changes in distributional effects. Local Resource Challenges Local resource challenges include reducing the hazard to communities, property, and resources of wildfire; managing forests to reduce the adverse effects of insects and disease; and providing access for commodity production, special uses, and other desirable services (Tables E.1 and E.2). Projected levels of treatment involving tree-cutting, are greatest under the land management plans alternative (16,300 acres per year; 244,500 acres over 15 years) followed by the proposed rule (7,600 acres per year; 144,000 acres over 15 years) and the 2001 rule (800 acres per year; 12,000 acres over 15 years). Timber harvest volumes associated with treatments are estimated to be 800 hundred cubic feet (ccf), 6,700 ccf (1,700 ccf on CRAs only), and 24,400 ccf per year for the 2001 rule, the proposed rule and land management plans respectively. When considering the assumption that agency or program budgets will remain flat, average total volume sold from NFS lands may well remain unchanged under all alternatives. Overall, the volume differences across alternatives are not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the wood products and forest service sectors. Approximately 14 percent (600,000 acres) of roadless areas in Colorado are considered high risk for insect and disease mortality. The percent of roadless areas that are projected to be treated under each alternative over a 15-year period are approximately 2 percent under the 2001 rule, 19 6

7 percent under the proposed rule, and 41 percent under the land management plans alternative, some of which would be directed toward reducing insect and disease risk. Other potential changes to forest or rangeland vegetation in the roadless areas include short-term, localized changes in vegetation composition, structure and function related to increases in roads and tree-cutting activities. Long term, more widespread improvements in forest and rangeland health would be more pronounced under the land management plans alternative and least pronounced under the 2001 rule, with the proposed rule somewhere in between. There would be no expectation that the boundary differences in CRAs under the proposed rule would have a measurable impact on the opportunities to conduct treatments with the exception that a total of 2,400 to 3,000 acres out of the total acres treated, are projected to occur in substantially altered areas (these treatments are also projected under the land management plans alternative). Fuel reduction treatments on all NFS lands in Colorado average approximately 61,000 acres per year. The 2001 rule provides the lowest probability of conducting hazardous fuel and forest health treatments in roadless areas, and least likelihood of reducing wildfire hazards to communities in and adjacent to roadless areas. Approximately 1 percent of annual fuel treatments on NFS lands in Colorado would occur in roadless areas if the Agency continues to conduct treatments on 61,000 acres per year. Treating 12,000 acres (<1 percent) of the 4.25 million acres in IRAs would not result in a significant reduction in wildfire hazard to many of the more than 600 at-risk communities that lie within the vicinity (3 miles) of an IRA. The proposed rule and the land management plans alternative both provide flexibility to prioritize where hazardous fuel and forest health treatments would occur in CRAs, and the associated ability to reduce the high-severity wildfire threats to communities and municipal watersheds that lie near the roadless areas. For the proposed rule, hazardous fuel reduction treatments, including tree-cutting and temporary road construction, may occur in CRAs if they are in community wildfire protection plan (CWPP) areas or wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, and are consistent with forest plan direction. Approximately 12 percent of annual treatments on all NFS land in Colorado could occur in CWPP or WUI areas in CRAs. Treating 114,000 acres (3 percent of the million acres in CRAs) offers more opportunity for improving fuels and fire management effectiveness and could result in significantly more fuels and fire hazard reduction compared to the 2001 rule. The proposed rule would result in reduced hazard for at-risk communities and other values in proximity to the CRAs. The land management plan alternative offers the greatest opportunity to reduce wildfire threats to values at risk. When compared to the average of 61,000 acres annually treated on all NFS lands in Colorado, the 16,300 acres projected to occur in IRAs could represent 27 percent of the total NFS acres treated annually. Treating 244,000 of the 4.25 million acres in IRAs would result in reducing the fuel hazard on about 6 percent of the total in IRA acreage, offering the greatest opportunity to improve fuels management effectiveness. Mineral and energy resources (oil and gas, coal, geothermal) from roadless areas can be of substantial value, and road access for exploration and development can affect future development of these resources. Under the 2001 rule, road roading would be allowed in IRAs on oil and gas leases that were issued (became effective) before January 12, 2001, and those leases allowed for road construction; foreseeable development and production would be limited to 68,400 leased acres on 18 IRAs on the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison (GMUG), San Juan, and White River NFs (i.e., areas in the Piceance Basin). Under the proposed rule, roading 7

8 would be allowed on oil and gas leases that allow surface occupancy and are issued before the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule becomes effective. Forseeable production could occur on about 129,200 acres of leased acres on 19 CRAs on the same forests. Under the land management plans alternative, roading would be allowed on existing and future oil and gas leases where roads are allowed under lease terms and stipulations. Foreseeable production under the land management plans alternative could occur on 219,417 leased acres on 21 IRAs. Based on these conditions, the land management plans alternative would have the most roads, oil and gas wells, and related infrastructure in roadless areas, and therefore opportunity for oil and gas development and foreseeable production (projected 731 wells over a 15 year period with access to 1,023.6 billion cubic feet of gas (bcfg)), and the 2001 rule would have the least (252 wells over 15 years with access to bcfg). The proposed rule would have slightly fewer road miles, wells, and lower production compared to the land management plans alternative, but slightly more opportunity and foreseeable production (674 wells over 15 years with access to bcfg) than the 2001 rule. Under the 2001 rule, roading in IRAs would be allowed on coal leases issued prior to January 12, 2001, and prohibited on coal leases issued after that date; foreseeable production opportunities would be limited to 3,700 acres of road-accessible coal reserves (135 million tons) in the West Elk IRA in the GMUG NFs. Under the proposed rule, roading would be approved pursuant to existing and future coal leases and coal exploration licenses in CRAs in the North Fork coal mining area on the GMUG NFs; foreseeable production opportunities would be limited to 29,000 acres of road-accessible coal reserves (1 billion tons). Under the land management plans alternative, roading could be approved on existing and future coal leases and exploration licenses in IRAs; reasonably foreseeable production opportunities would exist on 31,000 acres of coal reserves (1.1 billion tons) on the GMUG NFs. Consideration could also be given to nonquantified reserves on 46,000 acres in the Pagosa Springs coalfield on the San Juan NF, as well as the unexplored and unleased coal resources on the Pike and San Isabel, Routt, and White River NFs. The land management plan alternative would have the highest potential for geothermal resource development in roadless areas because most land management plans do not prohibit roading in the roadless areas for such development. Geothermal development would not occur in roadless areas under the 2001 rule or the proposed rule because of prohibitions on road construction for this purpose. There are no current leases or lease applications for geothermal development on NFS lands in Colorado. A programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) is underway to address the potential for geothermal resources on NFS land in Colorado. The Forest Service will continue to respond, under all alternatives, to all potential public health and safety situations in roadless areas. Under the 2001 rule, the lower number of road miles projected to occur in roadless areas would continue to limit the responsiveness and timeliness to emergency health and safety situations. Under the proposed rule, and even more so under the land management plans alternative, the increases in road miles projected to occur in roadless areas could better facilitate rapid responses to emergency health and safety situations. In Colorado, there are approximately 3,900 lands-related special use authorizations on NFS lands authorized to individuals, business entities, State and local governments, and other Federal agencies. These uses include, but are not limited to reservoirs, monitoring stations, communication sites, electric transmission, oil and gas pipelines, and water conveyance. All 8

9 alternatives allow for continuation or renewal of existing authorizations in roadless areas. A draft programmatic EIS (Department of Energy, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)) regarding designated energy corridors on Federal lands does not indicate that corridor designations would go through IRAs or CRAs. Future special use authorizations for utilities and water conveyance systems in IRAs are allowed but unlikely to occur under the 2001 rule due to road construction prohibitions in association with utility or water conveyance facilities that were not authorized prior to Under alternative 1, approximately 0.7 miles of road construction in IRAs per year are projected in association with existing special use authorizations, which could include utility or water conveyance facilities, under the 2001 rule. The proposed rule allows road building for future utilities and water conveyance systems. However, the definition of utilities does not include water reservoirs or communications facilities; permissions do not apply to uses other than utilities and water conveyance. Estimates under this alternative project approximately 0.9 miles of roading would occur annually in CRAs for future authorizations. Approximately 0.3 road miles per year are projected for existing authorizations in CRAs. The construction of oil or gas pipelines through a CRA from a source or sources outside a CRA would be prohibited under the proposed rule; this may affect efforts to increase capacity in the future. Under the land management plans alternative, most forests would allow new roads in IRAs in support of current as well as future special use authorizations. Projections for roading in roadless areas for existing special land use authorizations are approximately 1.2 miles in IRAs, with 1.5 miles projected for future utility or water conveyance facilities. Estimates are not available for future projected pipeline miles. Ski resorts are one of the major land use authorizations permitted on NFS lands in Colorado. The 2001 rule would limit opportunities for ski area development (road construction, tree-cutting) for those acres associated with ski areas that are in roadless areas that were not authorized in a permit prior to January 12, As a result, development may occur on 3,200 acres in IRAs across six ski areas. Under the proposed rule, the ski areas that are currently in IRAs would not be included in the CRAs. This would allow road construction and tree-cutting on a total of 8,200 acres in CRAs across 13 ski areas. Under the land management plans alternative the potential to construct roads and cut trees in IRAs in ski areas would be the same as under the proposed rule. Authorization of roads in developed ski areas might facilitate the implementation of required ski area vegetation management plans to improve forest health, remove hazard trees, and manage fuels. The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant impact on other local resource issues or concerns including livestock grazing, saleable minerals, other leasable minerals, or locatable minerals. Roadless Characteristics Roadless characteristics include high quality soil, water (including drinking water), and air; plant and animal diversity; habitat for sensitive species; reference landscapes and high scenic quality; primitive and semi-primitive recreation; cultural resources; and other locally identified unique characteristics (Table E.2). Potential effects to roadless characteristics in the next 15 years are likely to be limited by the levels of roading, tree-cutting, and energy resource activity that are projected to be reasonably foreseeable during that time. 9

10 Roadless area characteristics and values typically include natural-appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. The CRAs currently have a high degree of scenic integrity. The 2001 rule would retain the greatest number of roadless area acres at high to very high scenic integrity levels; scenic quality would remain largely unaltered. Many substantially altered area acres would continue to reflect moderate to low scenic integrity levels, inconsistent with general roadless area characteristics and values. The proposed rule would retain the majority of the 4.03 million acres of CRAs at high to very high scenic integrity levels. Projected levels of road construction and other activity could result in a higher potential than the 2001 rule for portions of roadless areas to shift to a moderate to low scenic integrity levels. Substantially altered landscapes would not be included in the CRAs and would therefore not detract from scenic integrity in designated roadless areas. The new unroaded areas included in CRAs would likely add to the number of areas protected at high to very high scenic integrity levels compared to the land management plans alternative. The land management plans alternative would retain fewer acres in the IRAs at the current high to very high scenic integrity levels, compared to the other alternatives. More portions of IRAs would gradually shift to a moderate to low scenic integrity level due to the levels of projected activity. Potential effects would be moderated under all alternatives through project-level compliance with scenic integrity and visual quality objectives specified in land management plans. There are a total of 35 designated wilderness areas in Colorado comprising 3,200,000 acres. Approximately 457,000 acres in 13 IRAs have been recommended for wilderness in land management plans. None of the three alternatives, including the proposed rule, will have a direct effect on designated wilderness, because these areas are outside of IRAs or CRAs. The effects to areas recommended as wilderness in land management plans, likewise, do not differ across alternatives, because land management plans generally prohibit road construction and treecutting and removal activities in those areas. The 2001 rule generally prohibits tree cutting and road building in IRAs and would therefore be least likely to result in effects that detract from wilderness characteristics in the adjacent wilderness areas. The restrictions on activities in IRAs under the 2001 rule provide a greater opportunity to maintain future options for new recommendations of roadless acres as wilderness. The activity prohibitions under the proposed rule would minimize the potential risk of detracting from wilderness characteristics or experience in adjacent wilderness areas, but projected activity levels, including coal mining, could increase risks compared to the 2001 rule. Projections of increased activity could also reduce the number of roadless acres that might support future wilderness recommendations. The risk of detracting from wilderness characteristics in adjacent wilderness areas would be highest under the land management plan alternative. This alternative could also potentially create the greatest reduction in the number of roadless acres that would be capable of supporting new wilderness recommendations. There are portions of a congressionally designated wild and scenic river (Cache la Poudre river), and a National Scenic Trail in roadless areas. None of the alternatives would directly impact the congressionally designated trail, and none of the alternatives would directly impact the stretches of the wild and scenic river corridor classified as wild or recreation, because the statute designating the river is equally or more restrictive. Due to similar statutory precedence, none of the altenatives would alter the management or scenic values of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. However, there could be indirect effects from projected activity levels under the 10

11 various alternatives on the characteristics and values of adjacent designated areas. Road construction and tree-cutting are not projected to occur on Research Natural Areas (RNAs) or Special Interest Areas (SIAs) under any alternative. Some land management plans allow roads or facilities to be built in RNAs or SIAs, although the values for which the area was established would need to be maintained. Soil disturbance from road construction and other ground-disturbing activities can affect the soil resource by increasing erosion, compaction, and other soil quality conditions. The potential for adverse impacts on the soil resource in roadless areas would differ slightly among the alternatives based on different levels of projected roading, tree removal, and energy resource development activities. The 2001 rule would have the least potential for adverse impacts and the land management plans alternative would have the greatest potential for adverse soil impacts. However, the differences among alternatives would be insignificant because effects from those projected activities would be mitigated through the use of site-specific analysis, watershed conservation practices, and other best management practices (BMPs), including post-project rehabilitation of disturbed soil. Impacts would also be limited in geographic extent and would be distributed over many different roadless areas. Thus, the actual effects on soil quality would be minor and of short duration. The relative differences in potential water quality impacts in roadless areas under any of the alternatives would be negligible. The 2001 rule would have the least risk of adverse effects on water quality, and the proposed rule would have a slightly higher risk, followed by the land management plans alternative with the greatest risk of adverse impacts in the roadless areas. However, these differences are insignificant because the actual impacts on water quality anticipated from any alternative would be small in magnitude and scattered over a wide geographic area. Most of the potential effects would be of short duration, with disturbed soil areas rehabilitated after projects are completed in those areas. Potential water quality impacts from authorized activities in roadless areas would be effectively mitigated by site-specific watershed conservation practices, BMPs, and regulatory permit requirements. Future activities under the alternatives are not expected to cause exceedences of water quality standards or contribute to the list of impaired water bodies. There is no major difference in the effects on air quality among the alternatives. One minor difference is related to potential smoke-related impacts from wildfires, which would be more likely to occur in roadless areas under the 2001 rule, and least likely to occur under the land management plans alternative. There are projections of methane gas emissions that would contribute to cumulative amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, the methane would dissipate to such diluted concentrations as to be insignificant. Threatened and endangered (T&E) species are listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to satisfy the goals of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while sensitive plant species are designated by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern. Two T&E plant species and 44 sensitive plant species are known or likely to occur in roadless areas in Colorado. The alternatives do not substantially differ in their estimated effect on T&E plant species, because no additional roading, tree-cutting, or energy development activities are projected to occur in the portions of roadless areas that support T&E plants. The only difference among 11

12 alternatives in the risk to T&E plants is related to the higher risk under the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative, compared to the 2001 rule that invasive plants would spread into T&E plant communities. There are 116 IRAs where sensitive plant species are known or likely to occur. There are 117 CRAs where sensitive plant species are known or likely to occur. Of the 116 IRAs and the 117 CRAs, activity projections differ across alternatives on 57 of the roadless areas. Under the 2001 rule, 12 of these areas are projected to experience roading, treecutting, or energy-related activities. In contrast, activities are expected to occur on 54 of the CRAs under the Colorado Roadless Rule, and 53 of the 57 IRAs under the land management plans alternative. This difference is unlikely to result in measurable differences in effects across these last two alternatives. The risk of impact on sensitive plants would be higher under the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative compared to the 2001 rule primarily because of (a) the higher likelihood of increases in invasive plants spreading into sensitive plant communities, and (b) the higher likelihood of inadvertent mistakes that may be made during project implementation. These differences in risk are correlated with the differences in the amount of projected activities in roadless areas that support sensitive plants. One T&E fish species, five sensitive fish species, six management indicator fish species (MIS) (MIS are identified in a forest plan as an indicator of management effectiveness), one aquatic mammal MIS (American beaver), and an array of benthic invertebrate MIS are known or likely to occur in roadless areas in Colorado. There are also aquatic habitats in many roadless areas that have been identified as being ecologically important as well as rare (e.g., fens, other wetlands). Considering the overall effects of each alternative, regardless of the differences on each forest, the 2001 rule would pose the least risk of adverse impact, and would generally have the least potential for adverse effects on protecting aquatic species and habitat compared to the more intensively managed lands outside roadless areas. The proposed rule would have more potential for adverse impacts to aquatic species due to projected activities, with the greatest potential for adverse effects under the land management plans alternative. Activities projected under the proposed rule would not likely result in measurable declines in overall population trends on any national forest for any of the aquatic T&E species, sensitive species, or MIS. A beneficial effect of the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative would be associated with the increased amount of fuel reduction treatment acres in IRAs, which could reduce wildfire severity in the IRAs and CRAs, resulting in beneficial effects on aquatic habitat and species. The greatest concern for potential impacts to aquatic species and habitat occurs when aquatic species and habitat overlap with roadless areas where roading and tree-cutting activities are projected, especially where combined with projected oil-gas or coal activities. This risk would be highest under the land management plans alternative, slightly less under the proposed rule, and lowest under the 2001 rule. The roadless areas of highest concern occur on the GMUG, San Juan, and White River NFs. For terrestrial wildlife, six T&E species, 34 sensitive species, and 36 MIS are known or likely to occur in roadless areas in Colorado. The 2001 rule would afford terrestrial species and habitats the most protection because it is most restrictive for activities in the roadless areas that could be detrimental to T&E, sensitive, MIS, and migratory bird species. By comparison, the proposed rule offers a lower level of protection in roadless areas than the 2001 rule due to activity permissions in areas with important terrestrial species and habitats. The land management plans 12

13 alternative correspondingly would have the highest potential for adverse impacts to terrestrial species and habitat. Detrimental effects from an expected increase in invasive plants, animals, and pathogens would be of greater risk under the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative respectively. Given the temporary status of most roads projected for roadless areas, the impact of these roads would be relatively short-term. However, increases in roads could encourage non-motorized recreational use as well as unauthorized motorized use that could increase potential impacts to wildlife. The increased ability to treat acres for forest health and fuels under the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative could improve habitats for early seral species in some areas and reduce the potential for a severe stand-replacing wildfire that could adversely impact terrestrial habitat. In general, for all alternatives, activities may affect individual animals but are not likely to adversely affect populations or critical habitat of T&E species, nor result in the loss of viability or cause a trend toward Federal listing for sensitive species. There is increasing potential for change in population trends for MIS under the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative respectively, depending upon the location, timing, intensity, and magnitude of activity. But, as with plants and aquatic species, potential adverse effects to terrestrial species are expected to be either avoided or minimized through compliance with standards and guidelines in land management plans and other applicable laws, regulations, and policy. The value of roadless areas in conserving biodiversity is likely to increase as habitat loss and habitat degradation increase in scope and magnitude in lands outside of roadless areas. Potential benefits of conserving roadless areas include protected large contiguous blocks of habitat and biological strongholds as well as providing habitat connectivity. These types of benefits would be similar for the proposed rule and the 2001 rule but would be realized to a lesser degree under the proposed rule. The land management plans alternative, because of fewer restrictions, would probably pose a higher risk of affecting biological diversity. Potential damages from invasive plants differ by alternative primarily in terms of the acres included in or eliminated from roadless designation. They also differ in terms of projected activity levels. The potential spread of invasive plants in roadless areas under the 2001 rule would therefore remain low (estimated 4 acres invaded per year). The risk of increasing invasive plant occurrences would remain relatively low under the proposed rule (38 acres invaded per year), with the greatest relative risk (82 acres invaded per year) under the the land management plans alternative. Overall, the potential magnitude and geographic extent of ground disturbance and spread of invasive plants in roadless areas would still be relatively low under the land management plans alternative. The 2001 rule would retain the greatest proportion of roadless area acres in a primitive or semiprimitive setting, at the lowest level of human development. Smaller proportions of the IRAs would show evidence of motorized vehicle use or be in a roaded natural setting. None of the projected activities under the 2001 rule would be expected to reduce the quality of hunting and fishing opportunities. The proposed rule would retain the majority of the CRA acres in a semiprimitive setting, although there would be more CRA acres with roads and energy operations. The higher levels of human activity and development would shift some areas from offering semiprimitive opportunities to a more roaded natural setting. Excluding the substantially altered areas and developed ski areas in CRAs would allow the CRAs to appear more consistent with semi- 13

14 primitive and unroaded characteristics expected in roadless areas. The inclusion of unroaded areas in CRAs would further protect and provide for dispersed recreation in generally unroaded and semi-primitive settings. Hunting and fishing opportunities likely would not change under the proposed rule because of the dispersed nature of projected road and tree-cutting activity and the large amount of NFS lands not altered by these activities. The land management plans alternative would result in higher levels of human activity and development in IRAs that are not consistent with typical roadless area characteristics. The effects of the IRA boundaries would be the same as described for the 2001 rule; however, more of the IRAs that offer semi-primitive settings would shift toward roaded natural settings as more roading, tree cutting and energy resource development occurs in the IRAs. The effects to developed recreation opportunities in roadless areas do not substantially differ between the alternatives. Developed recreation sites would not be constructed in the roadless areas under the 2001 rule or the proposed rule. One mile of road construction for development of a new campground is projected under the land management plans alternative over the next 15 years. Neither the proposed rule nor the land management plans alternative would be expected to cause a measurable change in the amount of carbon dioxide nor other greenhouse gas emissions compared to current conditions and trends in the roadless areas under the no-action alternative (the 2001 rule). The cumulative effects of climate change, in combination with the direct effects associated with the alternatives, on roadless area conditions (e.g., drought, wildfire, insects/disease) and resources (e.g., water yield, air quality, T&E species and habitat) cannot be quantitatively described in this programmatic evaluation. However, the risk of cumulative effects would be somewhat lower under the 2001 rule because the total amount of ground-disturbing activity would be less than under the proposed rule or the land management plans alternative. The proposed rule is expected to have negligible adverse effects on other resources associated with roadless characteristics including geological and paleontological resources, cultural and heritage sites, non-timber products, and recreational special uses (including outfitter and guide opportunities) based on reasonably foreseeable activity projections. Any adverse impacts to these resources and services would be addressed through analysis conduced in accordance with NEPA and minimized through compliance with forest plan standards and guidelines. Agency Costs Agency costs are summarized in Table E.2. The proposed rule does not prescribe project-level or site-specific activities. Differences in program costs have therefore not been quantified, but qualitative comparisons of relative treatment effectiveness can be made. Treatment projects associated with fuel reductions and/or forest health may involve one or more treatment methods including biomass removal, mechanical mulching, mastication, and prescribed fire. In most roadless areas, the limited amount of roads, fuel-breaks, and fuel-treated areas makes them more difficult to treat and more vulnerable to high-severity fires. Much of the road construction under the proposed rule is expected to be affiliated with biomass removal under service contracts with or without salvage rights, stewardship, or a timber sale where receipts can help offset the cost of treatment and temporary road construction. Given the 14

15 assumption that program budgets will remain relatively flat, it is unlikely that the alternatives will result in significant changes in administrative costs. Under the 2001 rule, fuel treatments would likely be more expensive and less efficient to implement in IRAs because of the lack of established roads and inability to reconstruct or construct roads. Compared to the 2001 rule, the proposed rule would provide increased flexibility to achieve fire and fuels management objectives in critical areas in CWPPs and WUI areas where consistent with forest plan direction. Circumstances allowing construction of temporary road miles would increase the Agency s ability to strategically locate fuel treatment areas on the landscape to improve effectiveness and possibly reduce the total amount of the landscape that requires treatment. Under the proposed rule, treating 7,600 acres per year implies that more hazardous fuel treatments would occur in CRAs, compared with the 4,300 acres of CRAs treated annually on average from the past several decades, if budgets remain flat. Correspondingly, fewer treatments would occur outside CRAs. Under the land management plans alternative, there would be a shift to treating even more acres (up to 16,300 acres per year) in IRAs and fewer acres outside IRAs compared to the past 7-year trend. The effects of building more roads for fuel treatments would generally be the same as described for the proposed rule, including increased efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness in wildfire suppression response as well as hazardous fuel reduction in WUIs. Road maintenance costs have been exceeding funding levels for at least the past several decades. Thus, there is a backlog of road maintenance needs on NFS land, and the Agency has increasingly emphasized the decommissioning of unnecessary roads (more than 10 miles of roads decommissioned for every mile constructed over the past 10 years on NFS lands in Colorado). It is expected that the trend in closing and decommissioning more road miles than are constructed would continue. The focus on temporary roads, in addition to decommissioning, will decrease the need for maintenance expenditure. Distributional Effects The distributional effects are listed in Table E.3. Many roadless areas (IRAs and CRAs) are in rural counties in the western and southwestern regions of Colorado, though some roadless areas are in counties in the Front Range metro area. A large majority of counties are considered small (population less than 50,000). The only resource outputs with measurable and quantifiable differences between alternatives are oil and gas, and coal. Jobs and income contributed by these output levels are estimated for a five county energy model area (Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, Rio Blanco counties). Changes in output of goods or services associated with timber harvest, livestock, recreation/special use permits, and other resource sectors are not projected to be significant across alternatives. The provisions for enhanced energy mineral development under the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative are likely to result in sizeable increases of average annual production, employment, and labor income contributed by energy sectors over the next 15 years. Total value of annual output from the oil, gas, and coal sectors is estimated to be similar for the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative ($565.7 and $621.7 million per year respectively) and signicantly higher than output under the 2001 rule ($149.5 million). Total jobs contributed under the 2001 rule are estimated to be 297 jobs, increasing to 1,481 under the proposed rule and to 1,592 under the land management plans alternative. Respective annual labor 15

16 income is estimated to be $17.5 million, $96.2 million, and $102.7 million (2006 dollars). The total annual output, employment, and labor income associated with the entire mining sector in the five-county energy model area is estimated to be approximately $5.1 billion, 7,027 jobs, and $662.1 million for A pattern similar to economic impacts emerges for average annual State and local government revenues (i.e., revenue sharing) from energy mineral leases. Compared with $6.1 million per year total payments and taxes received by the State and counties under the 2001 rule, payments are estimated to be approximately four times larger for the proposed rule ($24.5 million per year) and the land management plans alternative ($26.8 million per year). Other Federal payments to State and local governments, such as those from National Forest (25 percent) Fund and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), are expected to either not change or be more than offset by revenues from Federal mineral lease payments. The distribution of projected fuel treatments and corresponding reduction in wildfire hazard to at-risk-communities near roadless areas varies by alternative. Values at risk can include citizen health, reliable water and power supplies, infrastructure (e.g., buildings, both public and private), business activity, and general quality of life. An estimated 619 at-risk-communities are within 3 miles of IRAs. Under the proposed rule, the likelihood of fuel treatments and corresponding opportunities for hazardous fuel reductions increases for 118 communities, relative to the 2001 rule. Under the land management plans alternative, fuel reduction opportunities increase for 196 at-risk-communities, relative to the 2001 rule. These results simply identify potential opportunities and are not intended to be projections of the actual extent or magnitude of WUI treatments. Table E. 1 Framework for analysis: comparison of roadless area acreage, road miles, and Tree-cutting Aggregate Roadless Areas Total Existing Authorized Road Miles in Roadless Areas Road Construction and Reconstruction Projected in Roadless Areas (1) Tree-cutting Projected in Roadless Areas 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) = 4,249,000 acres Colorado Roadless Areas (CRAs) = 4,031,000 acres Land Management Plans (LMPs) Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) = 4,249,000 acres 1,396 miles 216 miles 1,396 miles 6 miles/year 21 miles/year 30 miles/year 800 acres/year 7,600 acres/year (12,000 acres over 15 yrs) (114,000 acres over 15 yrs) 1,700 ccf/year: CRAs only Harvest volume Projected in 800 ccf/year 6,700 ccf/year:cras and Roadless Areas Substantially Altered areas (1) More than 10 miles road decommissioning expected per year for all alternatives. Ccf = hundred cubic feet. 16,300 acres/year (244,500 acres over 15 yrs) 24,400 ccf/year 16

17 Table E. 2 Summary of net benefits of the proposed rule and alternatives. Category 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule LMPs Local Challenges: Roadless Area Management Wildfire hazard (1) 1 percent of the annual fuel treatments on NFS lands in Colorado could occur in roadless areas. Lowest opportunity to improve fuels and fire management efficiency. 12 percent of the annual fuel treatments on NFS lands in Colorado could occur in roadless areas (in CWPP areas or WUIs). Moderate opportunity to improve fuels and fire management efficiency. 27 percent of the annual fuel treatments on NFS lands in Colorado could occur in roadless areas. Greatest opportunity to improve fuels and fire management efficiency. Insect and disease (1) 2 percent of the high risk acres in roadless areas would likely be treated. 19 percent of the high risk acres in roadless areas would likely be treated. 41 percent of the high risk acres in roadless areas would likely be treated. Reduction of wildfire hazard for at-risk-communities and values Opportunities to reduce wildfire hazard for at-risk communities would be lowest under this alternative compared to the others. Opportunities to reduce wildfire hazard for at-risk communities would be available but somewhat limited under this alternative compared to the others. Opportunities to reduce wildfire hazard for at-risk communities would be greatest under this alternative compared to the others. Wildlife and plant habitat including special status species Not allowing new roads in conjunction with treatments to reduce wildfire hazard could result in a higher risk of severe wildfires causing adverse impacts to habitat for some species. Allowing new roads in conjunction with treatments to reduce wildfire hazard could result in reducing the hazard of severe wildfires causing adverse impacts to habitat for some species. Increased ability to cut trees on more acres for forest health and fuels management could improve habitat for early seral species in some areas in the short-term. Same flexibility to improve habitat conditions as the proposed rule, but to a greater extent.

18 Utility and water facilities and conveyances Does not allow new roads to provide for future utility or water conveyances in roadless areas (limited to those under an existing permit issued prior to January 2001). Allows new roads to provide for future electrical transmission utilities and water conveyances (not reservoirs) in roadless areas (other then where prohibited by forest plan direction). Same flexibility as the proposed rule, with additional flexibility for new roads to provide for other types of utilities such as telephone and fiber optic lines, water reservoirs, and others (other then where prohibited by forest plan direction). Roadless area boundary Updates Public safety and Safety Outstanding rights and existing authorized uses of NFS lands Ski Areas Does not provide a process for updating roadless area boundaries. Changes could be allowed in the future if authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture through rule making. Provides a process for updating roadless area boundaries. Modifications based on changed circumstances or public need require at least 60 days public notice and opportunity to comment. Like the proposed rule, provides a process for updating roadless area boundaries. Boundary changes may be made through a forest plan amendment or revision process, subject to public involvement and analysis under NFMA and NEPA regulations (36 CFR 219 and 40 CFR 1500). All of the alternatives provide adequate flexibility to respond to emergency situations or major threats to public health and safety in roadless areas (refer to features common to all alternatives). The Forest Service will continue to respond to wildfires, chemical or oil spills, abandoned mine hazards, road-design hazards, hazard trees, and other similar situations. Roads for this purpose must be temporary under the proposed rule, and would be expected to be temporary under the 2001 rule and land management plans. Limited capacity to respond to emergency situations. Roads improve capacity to respond to emergency situations. Roads provide greatest capacity to respond to emergency situations. All of the alternatives allow the exercise of outstanding rights for access, occupancy, and use of NFS lands in roadless areas, including those that exist by law, treaty rights, or other authority (e.g., access to private property, valid mining claims for locatable minerals, land uses protected by American Indian treaty rights). All of the alternatives allow for the continuation, transfer, or renewal of existing land use authorizations in roadless areas that exist at the time the applicable roadless rule becomes effective, including discretionary authorizations such as for livestock grazing and other permitted activities. For clarification, existing authorizations under the 2001 rule are those issued prior to January 12, 2001, while existing authorizations under the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule would be those issued prior to adoption of the final rule. Thus, outstanding rights and existing authorized uses may continue in roadless areas except where limited by applicable laws, regulations, Forest Service directives, or forest plan direction. Road building and tree-cutting may occur on 3,200 IRA acres under permits authorized prior to 1/12/2001. Road building and tree-cutting may occur on 8,200 IRA acres (acres not included in CRAs). 18

19 Leasable Minerals: Energy Resources Pipelines and Access energy resources Provides the least opportunity for access to develop oil, natural gas, or coal resources in roadless areas. No prohibition on oil or gas pipelines through IRAs from sources outside IRAs. Oil and gas Projections are for approximately 252 oil and gas wells in IRAs with access to bcfg over a 15-year period; providing the least opportunity for oil and natural gas development and production among the alternatives. Access to develop oil and natural gas is similar to 2001 roadless rule. Increases roaded access to future coal resources in the North Fork coal mining area. Prohibits construction of oil and gas pipelines through CRAs from sources exclusively outside the CRAs. Projections are for approximately 674 oil and gas wells in CRAs with access to bcfg over a 15-year period; providing more opportunity for oil and natural gas development and production than the 2001 rule and less than the land management plans alternative. Provides the most opportunity for access to develop future oil, natural gas, and coal resources compared to the other alternatives. No prohibition on oil or gas pipelines through IRAs from sources outside IRAs. Projections are for approximately 731 oil and gas wells in IRAs with access to bcfg over a 15-year period; providing the most opportunity for oil and gas development and production than other alternatives. Coal Geothermal Projections are for 6.0 miles of new roads for coal-related activity in IRAs. Restricts access to potential coal resources in IRAs more than other alternatives. 3,700 acres of road-accessible reserves (135 million tons). Projections are for 45 miles of new roads for coal-related activity in CRAs. Reduces restrictions on access to potential coal resources in CRAs compared to the 2001 rule, but is more restrictive than the land management plans alternative (limits new roads to the North Fork coal mining area). 29,000 acres of road-accessible reserves (1 billion tons). Projections are for 66 miles of new roads for coal-related activity in IRAs. Least restrictive on access to potential coal resources in IRAs compared to the other two alternatives. 31,000 acres of road-accessible reserves (1.1 billion tons) Opportunities for geothermal development in roadless areas would not occur under the 2001 rule and the proposed rule due to new road prohibitions. Opportunities for geothermal development in roadless areas would occur under the land management plans alternative as most land management plans allow new roads in roadless areas for this purpose.

20 Other Resource Effects Livestock Management Locatable and saleable minerals None of the projected activities in roadless areas that vary by alternative would be likely to have any substantial beneficial or adverse impacts on livestock management operations in roadless area grazing allotments. Opportunities to develop locatable minerals resources held by valid mining claims in roadless areas would continue to occur and would not differ by alternative. Opportunities for saleable minerals production would not likely differ by alternative because little to no saleable mineral operations would likely occur in the roadless areas. Roadless Area Characteristics and Values Soil and water quality, including public drinking water sources Air quality Invasive plants Scenic quality (integrity) No major difference among alternatives related to the risk of adverse water quality and soil impacts. The 2001 rule would have the least risk of adverse effects, and the proposed rule would have a slightly higher risk, followed by the land management plans alternative with the greatest risk of adverse impacts. However, these differences are insignificant because the actual impacts would be small in magnitude and scattered over a wide geographic area. Most of the potential effects would be of short duration, and effectively mitigated by site-specific watershed conservation practices, BMPs, post-project rehabilitation of disturbed soil, and regulatory permit requirements. No major difference among alternatives related to the risk of adverse impacts on air quality. One minor difference is related to potential smoke-related impacts from wildfires, which would be more likely to occur in roadless areas under the 2001 rule, and least likely to occur under the land management plans alternative. None of the alternatives is likely to result in emissions that would exceed air quality standards; most would be of short duration with sitespecific mitigation measures applied as needed. An increase of about 4 acres per year of invasive plants in IRAs. Maintains the most IRA acreage at high to very high scenic integrity levels where it exists. An increase of about 38 acres per year of invasive plants in CRAs. Retains majority of CRAs at high or very high integrity; the scenic integrity of some areas would be reduced by the roads and road-related activities projected as likely to occur in CRAs. An increase of about 82 acres per year of invasive plants in IRAs. Maintains the least IRA acreage at high to very high scenic integrity levels, as more IRA acres would be reduced by shifting to a moderate to low scenic integrity from the roads and road-related activities projected as likely to occur in IRAs 20

21 Cultural properties and sacred sites Wilderness and other congressionally designated areas Protected Species, Habitat, and Biodiversity No major difference among alternatives related to the risk of adverse effects on traditional cultural properties, sacred sites or other cultural (heritage) resources. The 2001 rule offers the most protection from development in roadless areas, which translates to fewer potential effects to historic properties; this is offset somewhat by a slightly increased potential for uncharacteristic wildfire. The proposed rule offers fewer acres of roadless protection, so there is an increase in potential development activities that may have an effect on cultural resources; wildfire risk is slightly reduced in this alternative. The land management plans alternative has the most potential for direct effects on cultural resources; this alternative may also have the lowest risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. No major difference among the alternatives related to the risk of adverse effects on congressionally designated areas. There would be no potential direct effect on these areas as they are outside the roadless areas that are the subject of each alternative. There could be indirect effects on wilderness characteristics due to some noise and visibility of human activities in adjacent roadless areas, with the highest potential for indirect impacts under the land management plans alternative, and the lowest potential under the 2001 rule. Effects on areas al in land management plans as recommended wilderness would not differ by alternative as land management plans generally prohibit roading and tree-cutting and removal activities in those areas. However, the restrictions on activities in IRAs under the 2001 rule provide a greater opportunity to maintain future options for recommending roadless acres as wilderness in the future, compared to the proposed rule and land management plans. Biodiversity The value of roadless areas in conserving biodiversity is likely to increase as habitat loss and habitat degradation increase in scope and magnitude in lands outside of roadless areas. Opportunities for protected large contiguous blocks of habitat, biological strongholds, and habitat connectivity would be greatest for the 2001 rule and lowest under the land management plans alternative. Terrestrial species and habitat Provides terrestrial species and habitat the most protection compared to other alternatives, based on the IRAs with important wildlife habitat and projected activities that differ among alternatives. Provides terrestrial species and habitat moderate protection (less than the 2001 rule and more than the land management plans alternative), based on the CRAs with important wildlife habitat and projected activities that differ among alternatives. Provides terrestrial species and habitat the least amount of protection compared to the other two alternatives, based on IRAs with important wildlife habitat and projected activities that differ among the alternatives. For all alternatives, potential adverse effects are expected to be avoided or minimized through compliance with standards and guidelines in land management plans and other applicable laws and policies. For all alternatives, activities may affect individual animals but are not likely to adversely affect populations or critical habitat of T&E species, nor result in the loss of viability or cause a trend toward Federal listing for sensitive species.

22 Aquatic species and habitat Native plants, including special status plants Recreation Provides aquatic species and habitat the most protection compared to other alternatives, based on the IRAs with important aquatic habitat and projected activities that differ among alternatives. Provides aquatic species and habitat moderate protection (less than the 2001 rule and more than the land management plans alternative), based on the CRAs with important aquatic habitat and projected activities that differ among alternatives. Provides aquatic species and habitat the least amount of protection compared to the other two alternatives, based on IRAs with important aquatic habitat and projected activities that differ among the alternatives. No major difference among alternatives related to the risk of adverse effects on native threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species. There would be very little to no increases in roads, tree-cutting, or energy development activities in the roadless areas that support those plant species. The main difference is the higher risk under the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative that invasive plants would increase from the higher levels of ground-disturbance, thereby increasing this threat to native plant communities. Primitive and semi-primitive recreation settings and opportunities Likely to retain the greatest proportion of IRA acreage in a primitive or semiprimitive setting. The substantially altered areas and developed ski areas in IRAs may continue to appear inconsistent with semi-primitive characteristics expected in roadless areas. Likely to retain a high proportion of CRA acreage in a semi-primitive setting; although some CRA acres would shift toward roaded natural in areas where the most roads and energy operations are projected to occur in CRAs. By not including substantially altered areas and developed ski areas in CRAs and adding unroaded areas to CRAs, the CRAs would appear more consistent with semi-primitive characteristics expected in roadless areas. Likely to retain lower proportions of IRA acreage in a semi-primitive setting; more acres would shift toward roaded natural in areas where the most roads and energy operations are projected to occur in IRAs. The substantially altered areas and developed ski areas in IRAs may continue to appear inconsistent with semi-primitive characteristics expected in roadless areas. Other General Resource Effects Geological and Paleontological Outfitters and guides and other special uses None of the projected activities in roadless areas that vary by alternative would be likely to adversely affect geological or paleontological resources, which would either be avoided or otherwise protected from potential adverse impacts. The alternatives are expected to have negligible adverse effects on recreational special uses, including outfitter and guide opportunities, based on reasonably foreseeable activity projections. Limitations on roading and tree-cutting under any alternative would not be likely to affect ability to obtain or use a recreation use authorization. 22

23 Climate Change Agency Costs Vegetation and Fuel Treatments Other Costs None of the alternatives are expected to cause a measurable change in the amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions. The cumulative effects of climate change on roadless area conditions cannot be quantitatively described in this programmatic evaluation. The risk of cumulative effects would be somewhat lower under the 2001 rule, and incrementally larger under the proposed rule and the land management plans alternative due to projected levels of ground-disturbing activity. Treatments are likely to be less efficient and more costly in IRAs. Increased flexibility to achieve management objectives in critical insect and disease areas; increase ability to strategically locate treatments and improve efficiency. Capacity to shift even more treatment acres into IRAs; increased efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness of wildfire suppression response as well as fuel reductions in WUIs Administrative costs are unlikely to change due to flat or static budgets and corresponding constraints on projects. Emphasis on road decommissioning and temporary roads is expected to ease demands on maintenance backlog. (1) Percentages assume that all projected tree-cutting acres target the respective objectives (fuels or insect/disease); high risk insect and disease areas may not overlap with WUI/CWPP areas during actual implementation. Bcfg = billion cubic feet gas Ccf = hundred cubic feet timber

24 Table E3 Summary of distributional effects and economic impacts of the proposed rule and alternatives Rule Proposed Rule LMPs alternative Leaseable minerals: coal, oil and gas Output Value, Jobs and Income (2006$) Contributed (1) $149.5 million/yr Output 297 Jobs supported $17.5 million per year Labor Income $565.7 million/yr Output 1,481 Jobs supported $96.2 million per year Labor Income $621.7 million/yr Output 1,592 Jobs supported $102.7 million per year Labor Income Revenue Sharing: Mineral Lease Payments and Tax Revenues (2007$) (2) State Total: $6,146,000 Energy-Affected Counties: $2,240,000 All other CO Counties: $193,000 State Total: $24,481,000 Energy-Affected Counties: $6,847,000 All other CO Counties: $904,000 State Total: $26,825 Energy-Affected Counties: $7,729,000 All other CO Counties: $976,000 Values at risk: Number of At- Risk-Communities where opportunities for hazardous 118 communities in 20 Counties 196 communities in 23 Counties NA (4) fuel reductions in the WUI may increase, relative to the 2001 rule (3) (1) Jobs and income contributed annually (2006 dollars) based on projected levels of coal, oil, and gas production and regional economic modeling multipliers. (2) Payments consist of property tax receipts from coal, oil, and gas production; State distribution of severance taxes and Federal royalties. Energy-affected counties are Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Montrose, and Pitkin counties. Changes in payments associated with the Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are not expected to change significantly. (3) At-risk-communities are assumed to experience an increase in likelihood if the probability of tree-cutting in association with the WUI changes from "unlikely or somewhat likely" to "very likely or plans underway" in at least one CRA within 3 miles according to forest unit survey responses (see Appendix C of the draft EIS). (4) WUI treatments are projected to be very likely or already planned for 82 at-risk-communities under the 2001 rule, 183 communities under the proposed rule, and 250 communities under land management plans. Some at-risk communities may benefit from fuel reductions under all alternatives but are within 3 miles of multiple CRAs; these communities may therefore experience incremental increases in opportunities when comparing alternatives. 24

25 BACKGROUND In January 2001, a Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 rule) was adopted into regulations at 36 CFR 294. Since its promulgation, the 2001 rule has continued to be the subject of litigation. Ongoing uncertainty about the future of the 2001 rule was a key factor that influenced the Governor of Colorado to initiate state-specific protections that would conserve the values and characteristics of CRAs. To this end, in May 2005, Colorado enacted Senate Bill (C.R.S ), which directed formation of a 13-person bipartisan taskforce to make recommendations to the governor regarding the appropriate management of roadless areas on the national forests (NFs) in Colorado. In November 2006, Colorado Governor Bill Owens used the taskforce s recommendations as the basis for petitioning to the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake state-specific roadless rulemaking for Colorado. The State s petition was considered for rulemaking by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, section 553(e) of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Department of Agriculture s rulemaking procedures at 7 CFR After Governor Owens submitted the State s petition to the Department of Agriculture, Bill Ritter, Jr. was elected Governor of Colorado. In April 2007, Governor Ritter resubmitted the petition with a substantive letter of transmittal. In June 2007, the State and the U.S. Forest Service presented the petition with some modifications to the Department s Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee. In August 2007, based on the advisory committee s review and report, the Secretary of Agriculture accepted the State s petition and directed the Forest Service to work in cooperation with the State of Colorado to initiate rulemaking (USDA RACNAC 2007). The State s petition requested the rulemaking process use the most updated roadless boundaries (State of Colorado 2007). Updating roadless area evaluation for Colorado resulted in identifying approximately million acres or about 29 percent of National Forest System (NFS) lands in Colorado, as appropriate for management as Colorado s roadless areas (fig. 1.2). Based on the petition, the State and the Forest Service collaboratively developed the rulemaking (regulatory) language for a proposed Colorado Roadless Rule that would govern management of roadless areas on NFS lands in Colorado. This report summarizes the regulatory impact analysis for the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule (proposed rule) as directed by Executive Order (E.O.) issued September 30, 1993, as amended by E.O on Regulatory Planning and Review. These executive orders address regulatory planning and review and require that agencies conduct a regulatory analysis for economically significant regulatory actions. Significant regulatory actions are those that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect the economy or economic sectors. The proposed rule will not have annual effect of $100 million nor is it expected to have an adverse effect on the economy. However, due to the level of interest in inventoried roadless area management, the proposed rule is designated as significant and is therefore subject to E.O

26 The Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 provides guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis including the use of benefit-cost analysis. Circular A-4 also recognizes that it is not always possible to express in monetary units all of the important benefits and costs and that agencies should exercise professional judgment in determining how important the non-quantified benefits or costs are likely to be in the context of the overall analysis. The guidance also notes that regulatory analyses include a discussion of nonquantified as well as quantified benefits and costs. Included in the analysis of benefits and costs should be an assessment of distributional effects and equity. The proposed rule is programmatic in nature and intended to guide future development of proposed actions in roadless areas. This proposal does not authorize the implementation of any ground-disturbing activities, but rather it describes circumstances under which certain activities may be allowed or restricted in roadless areas. Before authorizing land use activities in roadless areas, the Forest Service must complete a more detailed and site-specific environmental analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Because the proposed rule does not prescribe site-specific activities, it is difficult to predict changes in benefits under the different alternatives. It should also be emphasized that the types of benefits derived from uses of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) in Colorado are far ranging and include a number of non-market and non-use benefit categories. As a consequence, benefits are discussed qualitatively in many sections of this report. This document summarizes information about the benefits, costs, and distributional effects of the proposed rule. For details about resource and/or program-specific environmental effects, the reader is referred to the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the proposed rule (USDA Forest Service 2008), as well as resource specialist reports cited in the DEIS. Purpose and Need The Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, and the State of Colorado are committed to conserving and managing roadless areas on NFS lands in Colorado. The Department, Forest Service, and State are seeking to establish lasting direction for the management of roadless areas in Colorado. The proposed State-specific rule is intended to provide greater management flexibility under certain circumstances to address unique and local land management challenges, while continuing to conserve roadless values and characteristics. Increased management flexibility is primarily needed to reduce hazardous fuels and large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, allow access to coal reserves in the North Fork coal mining areas, and to allow access to future utility and water conveyances, while continuing to conserve roadless area values and characteristics. The State-specific rule presents an opportunity to effectively integrate local and national perspectives on roadless area management. It offers a greater opportunity for collaboration among government officials and the citizens of Colorado in creating a solution for conserving the integrity and beauty of Colorado s roadless areas along with increasing flexibility to address other important land and resource management concerns. 26

27 Further, the State requested and the Forest Service agreed that the roadless area boundaries be reviewed and where necessary be adjusted to more accurately reflect roadless characteristics and to correct outdated boundaries and mapping errors. In summary, the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, and the State of Colorado agree there is a need to balance local and national interests in providing management direction for roadless areas on NFS lands in Colorado. There is a need to refine and adjust some of the provisions of the 2001 rule in order to improve the balance between conserving roadless characteristics while addressing forest health and community wildfire protection needs and access to valuable energy resources. At the same time, there was a desire for the Colorado Roadless Rule to retain many of the key provisions from the existing 2001 rule, in order to Maintain existing rights and permitted uses, including those provided by statute, treaty, and other legal instruments, for occupancy and use of NFS lands. Provide reasonable access to publicly and privately owned property and facilities. Maintain the ability to respond to emergency situations and major threats to human life and property. Protect human health and safety. Prevent irreparable resource damage. Protect wildlife habitat, especially for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Protect roadless characteristics and values. Roadless area characteristics and values, as defined in the 2001 rule preamble (66 FR 3244) and referred to in the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule, are summarized as follows: High quality or undisturbed soil, water, or air. Sources of public drinking water. Diversity of plant and animal communities. Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land. Primitive, semi-primitive motorized, and semi-primitive non-motorized. Reference landscapes. Natural-appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. Other locally identified unique characteristics (e.g., uncommon geological formations, unique wetland complexes, unique social/cultural/historical characteristics, areas prized for collection of non-timber forest products, or exceptional hunting and fishing opportunities). 27

28 Proposed Rule and Alternatives Roadless Area Boundaries For the purposes of this analysis, all existing congressionally designated acres (nine designated protection, wilderness, or special management areas included in IRA boundaries) are removed from the roadless areas for all alternatives. This provides a consistent framework upon which to compare the consequences of each alternative. The IRAs described in the 2001 rule final environmental impact statement (EIS) publication and associated map database cover approximately 4.43 million acres, while the roadless areas described in this EIS cover approximately 4.25 million acres, owing to removal of the congressionally designated lands (see Figure 1). All alternatives identify specific NFS lands in Colorado to be managed as roadless areas. Generally, they have a minimum size of 5,000 acres, unless they are adjacent to existing wilderness and contain many of the roadless area characteristics, as described in the Purpose and Need. For purposes of this analysis, alternatives 1 and 3 share common roadless area boundaries, referred to in this EIS as IRAs. The proposed rule proposes modifications of those roadless area boundaries and are referred to in this EIS as CRAs, amounting to million acres (see Figure 2). Table 1 provides an overview of the IRA and CRA acres, by national forest administrative unit. Under any of the alternatives, 29 to 31 percent of the total NFS lands in Colorado are in identified roadless areas. Table 1 shows that 2 percent fewer acres of NFS lands in Colorado would be in roadless areas under the proposed rule compared to alternatives 1 and 3. The change in acreage for CRAs is a result of correcting mapping errors, not including areas that do not meet the criteria for roadless, not including ski areas, and adding new roadless acres as explained later in the detailed description of the proposed rule. Also, the acres included and not included in IRAs compared to CRAs, along with the names of IRAs and CRAs, are displayed in Appendix A of the DEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008). 28

29 Table 1. Acreages and percentages of roadless areas in Colorado under each alternative, by national forest National forest administrative unit NFS acres in Colorado 2001 rule and LMPs Alternative The proposed rule Percent of NFS acres in IRAs Percent of NFS acres in CRAs IRA acres CRA acres Arapaho and Roosevelt 1,537, , , Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison 2,974,000 1,060, , Manti La Sal 27, , , Pike and San Isabel 2,230, , , Rio Grande 1,823, , , Routt 1,125, , , San Juan 1,879, , , White River 2,286, , , Total 2 13,881,000 4,249, ,031, The Manti-La Sal is a 1.4-million-acre national forest mostly in Utah, with only 2 percent of those acres in Colorado. 2 Totals may not add due to rounding to nearest 1,000 acre. (Source: Roadless Area EIS database 2008.) 29

30 Figure 1 Inventoried roadless areas in Colorado 30

31 Figure 2 - Proposed Colorado roadless areas Alternatives This section summarizes each of the three alternatives considered. For more specific language and a detailed comparison of alternatives, the reader should consult chapter 2 of the DEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2008). The three alternatives are: 2001 rule (no action, referred to as Alternative 1 in the DEIS), 1 Colorado Roadless Rule (proposed rule, referred to as Alternative 2 in the DEIS), and Land Management Plans Alternative (referred to as Alternative 3 in the DEIS) Management of NFS lands in Colorado is governed by a variety of Federal land management statutes (laws), regulations (also called rules), Executive orders, and the Forest Service directive system (manuals and handbooks). In addition, some State and local laws and regulations apply on NFS lands in the State. All alternatives in this analysis assume that these governing authorities are not affected. All alternatives, unless otherwise superseded by a roadless rule, Rule refers to Federal regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR 294- Special Areas, regarding Forest Service management of roadless areas. 31

32 assume that direction set forth in land management plans for the NFs in Colorado would continue to govern project and activity decisionmaking on NFS lands, including roadless areas Rule This alternative reflects current management under the 2001 rule, which was promulgated to ensure that inventoried roadless areas will be managed in a manner that sustains their values now and for future generations (66 FR 3247). The 2001 rule provides a baseline for comparing the environmental consequences of the proposal and any other alternatives. This alternative is the most constrained in terms of circumstances for road building and tree-cutting activities in roadless areas. Roadless areas consist of IRAs identified in the 2001 rule. The IRAs analyzed as part of this alternative include approximately 4.25 million acres of NFS lands in Colorado. The 2001 rule generally prohibits roading in IRAs with the exceptions noted in Table 2. Table 2. The 2001 rule, circumstances in which roading may occur in IRAs Description Where a road is needed to protect public health and safety in cases of imminent threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property. Where a road is needed to conduct a response action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or to conduct a natural resource restoration action under CERCLA, section 311 of the Clean Water Act, or the Oil Pollution Act. Where a road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or continuance of existing land use authorizations. Where road realignment is needed to prevent irreparable resource damage that arises from the design, location, use, or deterioration of a NFS road that cannot be mitigated by road maintenance. Where road reconstruction is needed to implement a road safety improvement project on a forest road determined to be hazardous on the basis of accident experience or accident potential on that road. Where the Secretary of Agriculture determines that a Federal Aid Highway project, authorized pursuant to Title 23 of the United States Code, is in the public interest or is consistent with the purposes for which the land was reserved or acquired and no other reasonable and prudent alternative exists. Where a road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a 32

33 mineral lease issued prior to adopting the 2001 rule (January 12, 2001), and includes any new lease issued immediately upon expiration of an existing lease. Such roading must be conducted in a manner that minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface disturbance, and complies with all applicable forest plan direction, regulations, and laws. These roads must be obliterated when no longer needed for the purposes of the lease or upon termination or expiration of the lease, whichever is sooner. The 2001 rule generally prohibits timber harvest (also referred to in this EIS as tree-cutting, sale, and removal) with the exceptions noted in Table 3. Table 3. The 2001 rule, circumstances in which tree-cutting, sale, or removal would be allowed in IRAs Description The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small-diameter timber may occur in IRAs where needed to maintain or improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat, consistent with maintaining or improving roadless area characteristics defined in The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small-diameter timber may occur in IRAs where needed to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period, consistent with maintaining or improving roadless area characteristics defined in The cutting, sale, or removal of timber may occur in IRAs where it is incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by this subpart. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber may occur in IRAs where needed for personal or administrative uses provided for in 36 CFR part 223. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber may occur in parts of IRAs where roadless characteristics have been substantially altered by the construction of a NFS road and subsequent timber harvest. Both the road construction and timber harvest must have occurred after the IRAs were established and prior to adoption of the 2001 rule (January 12, 2001). The 2001 rule does not revoke, suspend, or modify any permit, contract, or other legal instrument authorized prior to January 12, Also, the 2001 rule does not revoke, suspend, or modify any project or activity decision made prior to January 12, Proposed Rule 33

34 The Colorado Roadless rule or proposed rule would supersede forest plan direction for roading and tree-cutting in CRAs, except where forest plan direction is more restrictive. This alternative incorporates updated roadless area evaluations from the four NFs currently completing forest plan revisions, as well as roadless area evaluations and inventory updates completed on all the NFs in Colorado as part of this proposed rulemaking process. The CRAs are designed to eliminate inconsistencies between roadless characteristics and existing conditions in roadless areas. In establishing CRAs for the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule, this alternative does not include 520,800 acres of substantially altered land (including corrections for mapping errors and landownership boundaries), and does not include 8,200 acres in existing ski permits or ski area development allocations in the land management plans. The substantially altered lands are those that do not have roadless area characteristics, primarily because of roads and timber harvest activities that have occurred in the area. The 8,200 acres of ski area terrain not included in CRAs include 6,600 acres in ski areas under existing permits and 1,600 acres outside permit boundaries but in forest plan allocations for future ski area development. The CRAs under this alternative include approximately 309,000 acres of unroaded NFS lands outside the current IRAs that have roadless characteristics that would be conserved under the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule. This alternative specifically identifies 29,000 acres in CRAs on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) NF as the North Fork coal mining area, in which certain roadless area management circumstances would apply. The proposed rule provides for the Chief of the Forest Service to issue administrative corrections to the maps effective upon public notice. In summary, the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule identifies approximately million acres of NFS land in Colorado to be managed as CRAs. Details of acreage adjustments by forest are displayed in Appendix A of the DEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2008). The proposed rule expands upon the circumstances in which roading and tree-cutting may occur in CRAs. This alternative generally prohibits roading in CRAs, but it does provide for exceptions to this general prohibition (see Table 4). Table 4. The proposed rule, circumstances in which roading would be allowed in roadless areas Description Roads Where a road is needed to conduct a response action under the CERCLA, or to conduct a natural resource restoration action under CERCLA, Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, or the Oil Pollution Act. Where a road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or continuance of existing 34

35 land use authorizations. Where road realignment is needed to prevent irreparable resource damage that arises from the design, location, use, or deterioration of a NFS road that cannot be mitigated by road maintenance. Where road reconstruction is needed to implement a road safety improvement project on a forest road determined to be hazardous on the basis of accident experience or accident potential on that road. Where the Secretary of Agriculture determines that a Federal Aid Highway project (pursuant to Title 23 of the United States Code) is in the public interest or is consistent with the purposes for which the land was reserved or acquired and no other reasonable and prudent alternative exists. Where a road is needed to allow for construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of existing or future authorized utility and water conveyance structures, if consistent with the applicable forest plan. Where a road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of an oil and gas lease, including construction of infrastructure necessary to transport the product on lands under an existing lease as of the effective date of this rule. Any roads constructed pursuant to rights granted under an oil and gas lease shall be decommissioned and the affected landscape restored when the road is no longer needed to facilitate oil and gas activities or upon termination of the lease. Where a road is needed in conjunction with existing or future coal leases, for coal exploration and development activities on certain CRA lands in the identified North Fork coal mining area. In the North Fork coal mining area, roads constructed pursuant to rights granted under a coal lease for the purposes of methane removal from underground mines may be used by an oil and gas lessee for the purpose of collecting and transporting coal mine methane, if applicable. These roads shall be closed to all motorized vehicles not specifically used for the purpose of access, except for administrative use by the Forest Service and other agencies with jurisdictional authority over coal mining, including emergency response. These roads will be restored and reclaimed pursuant to section (c) once coal mining or the collection/transportation of coal mine methane under an oil and gas lease is completed. Temporary Roads Only Where a road is needed for treatment actions and in areas identified in a CWPP as defined in section 101(3) of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law Number ) or, if a CWPP is not present, in areas of the WUI as defined in section 101(16) of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of Where a road is needed for public health and safety in cases of threat of flood, fire, or other potential catastrophic event that without intervention, would cause the loss of life, or property. 35

36 Unlike the 2001 rule, the proposed rule adds circumstances allowing road building in CRAs to support future authorizations of utility and water conveyance structures 2, subject to applicable forest plan direction, and to support future coal leases in the North Fork coal mining area. The proposed Colorado Roadless Rule also includes circumstances allowing temporary road building in CRAs to support CWPPs or WUI fuels projects, if the applicable forest plan would allow the action. Roads can be built for accessing existing oil and gas leases, as of the date of the Colorado Roadless Rule, and will be considered forest roads, thus part of the NFS. Forest roads built for access to existing oil and gas leases and coal mining and related surface activities, will be decommissioned and the affected landscape restored when the road is no longer needed or upon termination of the license or lease. The proposed rule further specifies that the responsible official may consider construction of a temporary road only after reviewing and rejecting other access options, resource and community protection needs, and consistency with applicable land management plans. If it is determined that a temporary road is needed, construction must be conducted in a manner that minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface disturbances, and complies with all applicable lease requirements, forest plan direction, regulations, and laws. When temporary roads are no longer needed for the established purpose, or upon termination or expiration of the contract or permit, whichever is sooner, those roads shall be decommissioned and the affected landscape restored. All roads constructed in CRAs under all circumstances will be closed to motorized vehicles, including off-highway vehicles (OHVs), not specifically used for the purpose of the access except for administrative use by the Forest Service. The provisions of the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule prohibit the cutting, sale, or removal of trees in CRAs unless one of four circumstances described in table 5 is met. The responsible official must consider the need for the cutting, sale, or removal of trees along with other resource and community protection needs, consistency with applicable land management plans, and effects on roadless characteristics. 2 Utilities are defined as existing and future powerlines. Water conveyance structures are defined as existing and future diversion structures, headgates, pipelines, ditches, canals, and tunnels; the term water conveyance structure does not include reservoirs. 36

37 Table 5. The proposed rule, circumstances in which tree-cutting, sale, or removal would be allowed in roadless areas Description Where needed for management and improvement of wildlife and plant species, including threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species in coordination with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, including the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Such activities should be designed to maintain or improve roadless characteristics as defined by this rule. Where needed to reduce the hazard of wildfire effects or large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, in areas covered by and as provided in a CWPP as defined in section 101(3) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law Number ), or, if a CWPP is not present, in areas of the WUI as defined in section 101(16) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of To the extent practicable, consistent with the purposes of this paragraph, the responsible official shall implement projects to reduce the wildfire hazard to communities in balance with roadless area characteristics as defined by this rule. Where it is incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by this subpart. Where needed and appropriate for personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 CFR 223- Sale and Disposal of NFS Timber. The Colorado Roadless Rule would not revoke, suspend, or modify any permit, contract, or other legal instrument authorized prior to the date of the rule. Also, the Colorado Roadless Rule would not revoke, suspend, or modify any project or activity decision made prior the date of the rule. Land Management Plans Alternative The land management plans alternative would promulgate a state-specific rule directing that management of IRAs in Colorado will be based on direction in the land management plans for the eight NFs. This alternative uses the IRAs identified in each forest plan or its associated records of decision, which currently coincides with the 2001 rule IRAs. Effectively, this alternative would exempt IRAs in Colorado from the 2001 rule. As with the 2001 rule, the roadless areas under the land management plans alternative cover 4.25 million acres. In general, the land management plans alternative allows for more roading and tree-cutting in roadless areas compared to the other two alternatives. This alternative follows forest plan direction regarding roading and applicable Forest Service directives and regulations. The directives discourage construction of new permanent roads and require responsible officials to minimize the miles of permanent roads to those determined to be necessary. Furthermore, the directives encourage use of temporary roads when needed for singleuse projects and authorizations. Road construction and decommissioning policies are the same as those previously described for the other alternatives. The land management plans alternative differs from the other two alternatives in that it does not include a general prohibition on roading in the roadless areas. Roading in these roadless areas is prohibited or limited only where there is specific land management plan direction. The DEIS 37

38 record contains a report that excerpts the management direction from each forest plan relevant to prohibitions or limitations on roading or tree-cutting, sale, or removal activities on NFS land. Under the land management plans alternative, there are no general prohibitions on tree-cutting, sale, or removal in the IRAs. Therefore, tree-cutting, sale, or removal would be allowed in IRAs anywhere those activities are not specifically prohibited or limited by forest-wide or management area direction in the applicable land management plan. Although management direction in the land management plans regarding tree-cutting differs by NF, some direction is common among plans. Common to all land management plans, tree-cutting for such non-timber purposes as hazardous fuel reduction or wildlife habitat improvement may occur on NFS lands that are considered unsuitable for timber production. Also common to all land management plans, tree-cutting for timber production purposes is limited to NFS land identified as suitable for timber production. Implications of Related Planning Efforts and Federal Direction The Council on Environmental Quality asks agencies to look at the effects of their similar and different actions to see if they may produce a cumulative effect greater than the sum of the effects (synergistic interaction). The Agency has reviewed the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule and its alternatives with the Federal direction listed below for any possible cumulative effects. The directions selected are those the Agency determined were most likely to have an influence on or from the Colorado Roadless Rule. While it is possible that changes to roadless area conservation could happen at a national scale, by future congressional or Executive action, these possibilities for change are too speculative and therefore, not analyzed. After review, the Agency found there would be no cumulative effect because all these directions are procedural and do not require a specific action to take place. However, as noted in the discussions below, the Agency has determined that the Colorado Roadless Rule, 2001 rule, and other state-specific rules may affect site-specific projects or plans designed to follow some of these procedural directions. Forest Service Budget The Forest Service budget is part of the annual budget appropriations for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. From fiscal year (FY) 2000 through the President s budget for FY 2009, the portion of the Forest Service budget devoted to fire preparedness and suppression has steadily increased from 25% to 44%. Basically for the next 15 years, the Agency expects to have a flat budget, with nearly half of the budget going to fire suppression. A flat budget will not allow the Agency to increase funding for proposed projects in inventoried roadless areas over the current level nationally, regionally, and within the State of Colorado. There will also be little funding to deal with the backlog of road and facilities work. Priority is expected to continue to be given to projects and proposals in response the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) and the Energy Policy Act of Those effects are discussed below. Planning Rule On April 21, 2008, the Agency published 36 CFR 219 National Forest System Land Management Planning Final Rule (the 2008 Planning Rule) in the Federal Register. The 2008 Planning Rule offers a more strategic approach to land management plan development, 38

39 amendment, and revision. It uses a collaborative approach to expand the public s opportunities to be more involved in planning. The 2008 Planning Rule requires the Forest Service to fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The responsible official will disclose environmental effects to a proposed forest plan using the appropriate level of analysis and documentation as required by NEPA. This could be an EIS, an environmental assessment (EA), or a categorical exclusion (CE) depending on the character of the proposed plan. The 2008 Planning Rule as clarified is procedural only, and does not cause NFs and grasslands to make decisions contrary to other national rules like the 2001 rule. However, 2001 rule and any future state-specific rules will have an indirect effect on forest plan revision efforts under any Agency planning rule, as they would restrict certain types of actions on those lands affected by the rule. Agency line officers may not be able to change those restrictions during the land management plan revision process. Conversely, as with the 2001 rule, during individual forest plan development in Colorado, it is anticipated that forest supervisors and regional foresters would consider plan alternatives that would, in the long-term, more closely mirror the goals established under the Colorado Roadless Rule. This alignment would not increase or decrease acreage, but would better parallel the types of activities and/or restrictions allowed. It is not anticipated all lands affected by the rule would conform during land management planning for a variety of reasons, including wildlife management issues, recreational demands, fiscal concerns, and congressional action. This would also be true if other state-specific rules are promulgated. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA define a cumulative effect as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what Agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR ). For cumulative impacts to accrue there must first be an impact from the action under review that can then be added to the impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 2008 Planning Rule establishes administrative procedures. The 2008 Planning Rule does not dictate how administrative units of the NFS are to be managed or the mix of uses on any or all units of the NFS. Consequently, there are no direct or indirect effects from the planning rule that can be aggregated with any effects of the Colorado Roadless Rule. It is anticipated the Agency will continue with its two-filter approach for compliance with either the Roadless Area Conservation Rule or the State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Rule and with the portion of land management plans covering those IRAs. This means, that no matter which roadless rule is in place, the procedures of the planning rule would not affect the provisions of the roadless rule. Neither would individual land management plans developed, revised, or amended under the 2008 Planning Rule affect provisions of the roadless rule. However, the Agency recognizes the 2001 rule or State-specific roadless rule would place constraints on individual IRAs in individual land management plans. In the case of the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule, the proposed rule seeks to narrow differences between the rule and land management plans. Therefore, a responsible officials discretion on the development, amendment, or revision of individual land management plans developed under any planning rule (all alternatives) would be constrained to ensure compliance with any roadless rule in effect for the specific IRAs. 39

40 Travel Management Rule In response to its growing backlog in road maintenance and the increase of motorized crosscountry travel, the Agency implemented its travel management regulations in November (70 FR 68264). This rule requires the designation of routes (roads and trails) on each NF and grassland. The public is allowed to participate. Motor vehicle use outside of designated routes will be prohibited. This is a procedural rule and there is no mandated outcome that would affect this Colorado Roadless Rule. Additionally, the Governor of Colorado has specifically stated his desire to keep travel management separate from the State s roadless petition. However, the Agency recognizes as each NF and grassland finishes their travel management process, there will be areas in IRAs where roads are determined to be no longer warranted. Eventually, these roads will be decommissioned and the area will recover or otherwise improve its roadless characteristics. Ecotypes which have faster growing vegetation will visually recover faster. These are generally found in the South, southeast Alaska, and areas west of the Cascades and Sierra Nevada Mountains (Pacific coast). If some of these areas are large enough or are adjoining existing roadless or wilderness areas, they may eventually be considered for wilderness recommendation through the Agency s forest plan revision process (Planning Rule). Because the 2001 rule did not provide for inclusion or exclusion of areas (36 CFR e) they would not be included under its prohibitions. 3 Changes to the 2001 rule prohibitions would come through individual rulemaking like this effort for Colorado. Proposed Forest Service NEPA Procedures The Agency will soon finalize a procedural rule to guide its implementation of NEPA. While the proposal will include some changes, most of the Agency s existing NEPA procedures currently in Agency directives would be moved to regulation unchanged including categorical exclusions. No cumulative effects are expected from these actions because these are procedural requirements, which do not have effects on the human environment. Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) (Pub.L ), provides processes for implementing hazardous fuel reduction projects on certain types of "at-risk" NFS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. It also provides other authorities and direction to help reduce hazardous fuel and restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions on lands of all ownerships. When implementing hazardous fuel reduction projects, HFRA protects existing old growth stands and [f]ocuses largely on small diameter trees, thinning, strategic fuel breaks, and prescribed fire to modify fire behavior, as measured by the projected reduction of uncharacteristically severe wildfire effects for the forest type (such as adverse soil impacts, tree mortality or other impacts); and maximizes the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote fires-resilient stands 4 The establishment of WUI areas and CWPPs helps to implement the Act. At the national-level, the majority of WUIs areas are not in IRAs; however, there are overlaps. WUI distances vary by 3 Section (e) states: The prohibitions and restrictions established in this subpart are not subject to reconsideration, revision, or rescission in subsequent project decisions or land and resource management plan amendments or revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 CFR part See Sections 102(e) and (f) of HFRA 40

41 individual CWPP. 5 These plans are developed following A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (2001). Except for the effects discussed in the body of the EIS on the implementation of the Act, the proposed action and its alternatives will have no effect on hazardous fuel reduction projects outside the State of Colorado. Energy Policy Act of 2005 Key provisions of the Act provide for the development of streamline procedures for energy exploration and development, but the Act does not direct energy development in areas, such as IRAs. In response to the Act, there is a multi-agency team developing a proposal to designate a system of West-wide energy corridors. While it is in the draft stage, the team is aware of the Agency s policy on IRAs. Any proposal derived from this effort will be subject to this rule. METHODS, DATA, AND ASSUMPTIONS Scope of Analysis The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars as well as guidance regarding E.O indicate that regulatory impact analysis should include benefit cost analysis, as well as an assessment of distributional effects. This report summarizes the benefits, costs, and distributional effects of three alternatives referred to as follows: 2001 rule, the land management plans alternative, and the Colorado Roadless Rule (proposed rule) (see section Proposed Action and Alternatives for details about management direction under the alternatives). The term roadless areas, as used throughout this chapter, generally refer to both the IRAs and CRAs. The scope of the proposal for rulemaking consists of broad regulatory management prohibitions and exceptions. This is not a proposal for implementing any site-specific projects or activities in roadless areas. When a specific action is proposed for implementation in a roadless area, it would undergo environmental analysis and public review pursuant to NEPA before implementation could be authorized. Commensurate with the broad geographic scale of this proposal covering more than 4 million acres of land and the lack of any site-specific proposed projects or activities; the potential effects are primarily described in qualitative and comparative terms. The analysis of potential effects relies on resource information readily available from geographic information system (GIS) map coverage, resource inventory databases, and resource specialist reports (see chapter 3 of the DEIS). The two primary activities that differ between the alternatives are (1) roading, and (2) treecutting and removal. These two activities have the greatest likelihood of altering and fragmenting landscapes with a result of immediate, long-term loss of roadless area values and characteristics. 5 The definition of Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) is found at Section 101 (16) of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of

42 Thus, to set the stage for subsequent sections, this section describes the relative differences in the amount of tree-cutting and roading projected to occur in roadless areas over the next 15 years. Projecting the potential for future tree-cutting and roading activities in roadless areas beyond a 15-year time horizon would be overly speculative in the context of this analysis. Budgetary constraints include an assumption that the congressionally appropriated budget would remain flat over the next 15 years. Forest plan direction is another factor that constrains activities in roadless areas. Roading and tree-cutting are restricted in roadless areas wherever the applicable forest plan direction is more restrictive than what is allowed under each alternative. Benefits and Costs Because the proposed rule does not prescribe site-specific activities, it is difficult to predict the benefits and costs of the different alternatives. In addition, the types of benefits derived from roadless characteristics and the uses of roadless areas are far ranging and include a number of non-market and non-use benefit categories that are difficult to measure in monetary terms. The proposed rule potentially affects opportunities associated with future resource access and availability. As a consequence, benefits are not monetized, nor are net present values or benefit cost ratios estimated. Instead, increases and/or losses in benefits are discussed separately for each resource area in a quantitative or qualitative manner in the context of the following measures: Changes in private sector opportunities associated with activities permitted or precluded (e.g., coal, oil and gas), Changes in non-market goods and services, ecosystem services, and sources of non-use benefits (e.g., recreational opportunities, forest health and wildfire management conditions, water quality provision, wilderness characteristics, status of threatened species) indirectly affected by activities permitted or precluded on roadless areas under the alternatives, and Agency costs and revenues accruing to the Forest Service (e.g., financial efficiency) from activities directly affected by the proposed rule. The assessment of benefits and costs begins by distinguishing between the creation of potential opportunities and the projection of reasonably foreseeable activities. Potential opportunities for generating goods and services are affected by the extent to which activities are permitted in roadless areas under each alternative. Projections of reasonable foreseeable activities take into account area-specific data and evidence regarding resource utilization and development trends, location of resources, and other factors affecting the likelihood that land will be used for specific uses. This information is aggregated into assumptions about reasonably foreseeable flows of goods (e.g., coal, oil and gas production), services (e.g., reduction of risks from wildfire in the wildland urban interface), and resource utilization and then used to project activity levels (treecutting, roading) for each alternative over a 15 year time period. Projected activity levels are also used to describe potential changes in benefits derived from roadless characteristics. Details about the derivation of activity projections are described in the DEIS for the proposed rule (USDA Forest Service 2008), as well as the resource specialist reports supporting the DEIS, and are not reiterated in this regulatory impact analysis document. 42

43 Benefits and costs are organized and discussed in the context of local resource challenges and roadless characteristics in an effort to remain consistent with the overall purpose of the proposed rule, recognizing that benefits associated local concerns may trigger indirect benefits in the roadless characteristics in some cases (e.g., forest health). Access and designations for motorized versus non-motorized recreation are topics raised in comments during scoping, however, the proposed rule does not provide direction on where and when OHV use would be permissible and makes clear that travel planning-related actions should be addressed through travel management planning and individual land management plans. A number of resource and service areas are assessed in detail in chapter 3 of the DEIS for the proposed rule, but the differences in impacts to or from many of these resources or services are found to be minimal or insignificant across alternatives and therefore not discussed in detail in this report. These areas include livestock grazing, saleable minerals, other leasable minerals), locatable minerals 6, recreational special uses (including outfitters and guides), and non-timber products. Distributional Effects The details about economic impact analysis for the proposed rule are provided in the Economics Specialist Report (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Distributional effects are discussed in the context of (1) changes in jobs and income for sectors where measurable output differs significantly across alternatives, (2) changes in revenue sharing (payments to states and counties) associated with receipts from sectors where output differs significantly, and (3) changes in opportunities for protecting values at risk in communities and counties adjacent to roadless areas. Economic impact analysis is used to evaluate potential direct, indirect, and induced effects on the economy. Economic impacts are estimated using input-output analysis. Input-output analysis is a means of examining relationships in an economy, both between businesses and between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions for consumption in a given time period. The resulting mathematical representation allows one to examine the effect of a change in one or several economic activities on an entire economy, all else constant. This examination is called impact analysis. IMPLAN (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2003) translates changes in final demand for goods and services into resulting changes in economic effects, such as labor income and employment of the affected area s economy. The IMPLAN modeling system allows the user to build regional economic models of one or more counties for a particular year. The regional model for this analysis uses the 2006 IMPLAN data. To provide a statewide context for the analysis, all Colorado counties were organized into four model areas. Table 6 summaries the counties in each of these model areas. Figure 3 is map displaying the county composition of each model area. 6 None of the alternatives affect rights of reasonable access to prospect and explore lands open to mineral entry and development of valid claims under the General Mining Laws of

44 Table 6. Colorado Counties by Economic Impact Model Area Model Area Counties Energy Roadless* Rural Roadless* Front Range Metro^ Eastern Plains Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, Rio Blanco Alamosa, Archuleta, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, Dolores, Eagle, Fremont, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Huerfano, Jackson, La Plata, Lake, Las Animas, Mineral, Moffat, Montezuma, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Rio Grande, Routt, Saguache, San Juan, San Miguel, Summit, Teller Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, Pueblo, Weld Baca, Bent, Cheyenne, Crowley, Elbert, Kiowa, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Otero, Phillips, Prowers, Sedgwick, Washington, Yuma * Oil, gas, and coal production for Gunnison and Pitkin Counties has been moved into the Energy Roadless Counties model to better account for economic interactions. ^ Some counties contain roadless areas. Appendix J contains a list of those counties with roadless acres in their boundaries 44

45 Figure 3. Colorado Roadless Analysis: Economic Impact Model Areas Natural gas and coal industry sectors, potentially affected by roadless area management, are primarily in five western slope counties: Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Blanco. The physical locations of natural gas and coal resources are found in other counties around the State of Colorado, but these locations are either (1) not affected by roadless management alternatives or (2) are isolated with somewhat small deposits. Pitkin and Gunnison Counties are exceptions to this characterization. Important natural gas and coal resources associated with roadless areas are in the northwest corners of Pitkin and Gunnison Counties 7. Development of these resources would likely impact jobs and labor income in the five counties noted above rather than in the counties where the deposits are located. Labor and material flows to the resource locations, as well as production transport after extraction, are far more likely to impact Mesa, Garfield, and Delta Counties instead of Pitkin and Gunnison Counties. Two coal mining operations in Gunnison County currently provide a good example of these flows. Nearly all employees working at the mines 7 Other counties within the San Juan basin (e.g., Archuleta, Mineral) have gas reserves and roadless area boundaries that change by alternative in Archuleta. However, oil and gas development is not projected to vary by alternative in the San Juan basin (see Energy and Minerals section of the DEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2008)). 45